Pre-Round Co-Founders' Agreement: Vesting, Disputes and Exits Before VCs Step In
Before the first round, co-founders must lock in vesting, decision-making rules and exit mechanics. Without an agreement, a co-founder divorce destroys the company at the next due diligence.
This topic is part of our service
Business law support in France | Corporate secretarialExpert note: This article was written by our chartered accountancy firm. Information is current as of 2026. For a personalised review of your situation, contact us.
Our firm supports over 200 growing companies each year. In that volume, the leading cause of pre-Series A due diligence blockers is not valuation, traction or accounts: it is the absence or poor drafting of a co-founders' agreement signed well before investors arrive. A co-founder who left 18 months ago without an exit clause, badly defined vesting, or no decision rules: these blind spots paralyse the round and are expensive to fix.
This article focuses exclusively on the pre-round co-founders' agreement (before any external investor), distinct from the post-VC shareholders' agreement we cover in our 15 vital clauses post.
This article is pedagogical. Any shareholders' agreement must be drafted by a lawyer. Examples are illustrative.
Executive summary#
- A pre-round co-founders' agreement is a dispute prevention tool, not a sign of distrust.
- Four pillars: vesting, governance, dispute resolution, co-founder exit.
- Without an agreement, French default law applies — and it is rarely fit for a fast-growing startup.
- An agreement signed by 2 or 3 co-founders prepares but does not replace the shareholders' agreement signed with investors at closing.
1. Why sign before the round#
Many co-founders defer this topic to the first round, telling themselves "VCs will impose a pact anyway". That is a mistake. Three reasons:
- Inverted leverage: without a pre-existing pact, founders negotiate vesting and governance with a VC in a dominant position, rather than amongst themselves in a calm setting.
- Historical effect: if a co-founder leaves 12 months before the round without an exit clause, they keep all their equity. The cap table becomes locked.
- Legal effect: French default law (Article 1832 of the Civil Code et seq.) provides for neither vesting nor exit clauses. Everything must be organised contractually.
Cost of a well-drafted pre-round agreement: roughly EUR 3,000 to 8,000 excl. VAT. Cost of an unmanaged dispute: regularly tens of thousands of euros in legal fees and round delay.
2. Pillar 1 — Founder vesting#
Vesting is the progressive acquisition by each co-founder of their shares. Without vesting, a co-founder leaving after 6 months keeps all their equity, creating a dead cap table that is highly problematic later.
2026 standard parameters#
- Duration: 4 years with 1-year cliff. No share is finally vested before year one; thereafter monthly or quarterly linear vesting.
- Legal mechanic: promise to transfer at par value to the company (or other co-founders) on departure before vesting completion.
- Vesting credit: if the co-founder has been working for 12 or 18 months already, the agreement may credit that time.
Articulation with future VC vesting#
Founder vesting is synchronised at the round with the vesting imposed by VCs: the clock may be reset, extended or maintained. The agreement must include this synchronisation clause to avoid a confrontational renegotiation.
3. Pillar 2 — Governance and decision rules#
Before the round, governance is built between co-founders: who decides what, at what majority, and which matters require unanimity.
Decision categories#
| Level | Typical decisions | Majority required |
|---|---|---|
| Day-to-day | Operational hires, ordinary commercial contracts | CEO alone |
| Important | C-level hires, contracts above threshold | Simple co-founder majority |
| Structuring | Fundraising, M&A, by-laws amendment, CFO hire | Unanimity or qualified majority |
Role allocation#
The pact specifies functional roles (CEO, CTO, CPO, COO) and the corresponding powers of attorney. With a CEO/CTO duo, expressly state that the CEO represents the company to third parties, save for technical areas delegated to the CTO.
4. Pillar 3 — Dispute resolution#
Fifty per cent of startups will face a major co-founder disagreement within the first three years. The question is not whether, but how the pact handles disputes.
Recommended mechanisms#
- Mandatory pre-litigation mediation: before any court proceeding, mediation by a third party (Paris Centre of Mediation and Arbitration or equivalent) over 30 to 60 days.
- Cooling-off clause: for certain decisions, mandatory 7 or 14-day delay between proposal and vote, to avoid heat-of-the-moment decisions.
- Independent third-party tiebreaker: option to co-opt a third party (advisor, mentor, accountant) as arbiter on certain matters in 50/50 deadlocks.
- Buy-or-sell (Texas shoot-out): in persistent deadlock between two equal co-founders, one names a per-share price; the other chooses to buy or sell at that price. Radical but effective.
Legal limits#
Léonine clauses (Article 1844-1 of the Civil Code) are void: a co-founder cannot be entirely excluded from profits or fully exonerated from losses. A buy-or-sell at a derisory price could be re-qualified.
5. Pillar 4 — Co-founder exit#
The most emotionally charged area — and the one that must be drafted most coldly, before the dispute arises.
Typical cases#
| Case | Definition | Treatment of shares |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntary resignation | Co-founder leaves on their own | Vesting applied + buyback at fair value of vested shares |
| Bad leaver | Serious misconduct, unfair competition, characterised breach | Buyback at par value or acquisition price |
| Good leaver | Long illness, death, recorded strategic disagreement | Fair value buyback, option to retain part |
| Exclusion | Decision by other co-founders (Article L. 227-16) | Per the agreement; strict procedural framing required |
Exclusion clause (SAS) — Article L. 227-16#
The Commercial Code allows, in a SAS, to provide in the by-laws for the exclusion of a shareholder (Article L. 227-16). This clause is very powerful but must be precisely drafted:
- Define the grounds for exclusion (serious misconduct, breach of obligations);
- Provide a contradictory procedure (the concerned shareholder must be heard);
- Set the valuation method for the bought-back shares.
Without rigorous framing, the clause is regularly invalidated by courts.
2026 illustrative parameters#
| Pillar | Parameter | 2026 indicative value |
|---|---|---|
| Vesting | Duration | 4 years, 1-year cliff |
| Vesting | Tenure credit | Yes if > 6 months activity |
| Governance | Structuring decisions | Unanimity or 2/3 |
| Disputes | Mandatory mediation | 30-60 days |
| Disputes | Buy-or-sell | 50/50 cases only |
| Exit | Bad leaver | Par value / acquisition price |
| Exit | Good leaver | Fair value (defined formula) |
Our chartered accountant's analysis#
When a founder consults us to prepare a round, our first question — before valuation, before accounts — is "what agreement have you signed between co-founders?". If the answer is "none" or "a 2-page Internet template", we know the first weeks of the engagement will be devoted to structuring this base. Otherwise, VC due diligence will expose every flaw at the worst moment.
Classic mistake: sign a "light" pact at incorporation, then never touch it for 4 years despite the arrival of a third co-founder, the departure of a first, or a business model pivot. The pact must be revisited at every structural event (new co-founder, new pivot, first key hire).
The underestimated risk#
Three frequent blind spots:
- Intellectual property: without an explicit clause, IP developed by a co-founder before joining does not automatically belong to the company. Every pact must include an explicit IP assignment (and an IP audit will happen at VC due diligence).
- Post-departure non-compete: must be drafted with financial consideration, limited duration and geography, otherwise it is void.
- Exit tax: a buyback at par value in a bad leaver scenario can generate taxation for the leaving co-founder (latent capital gain). Anticipate the tax mechanic.
What the leader must decide#
- Sign a co-founders' agreement at incorporation (or within the first 6 months), even in a friendly duo.
- Put vesting in place from day one, not at the round.
- Revisit the pact at every major event (new co-founder, pivot, first key hire).
- Articulate the founder pact with the future VC pact from the start: avoid contradictions that complicate the round.
2026 watchpoints#
- Distant / hybrid co-founders: remote work multiplies divergences on commitment and productivity. The pact must clarify commitment obligations (full-time, exclusivity, location).
- AI / no-code co-founders: outsourced technical co-foundations (a tech founder at 30% of their time) are fragile. Document scope and commitment clearly.
- JEI / R&D tax credit status: certain clauses (exclusivity, working time) interact with Young Innovative Company conditions.
- GDPR compliance: handling of personal data shared between co-founders (customers, prospects) must be clarified to avoid joint liability in case of leak.
Frequently asked questions
1. Can a co-founders' agreement be signed without a lawyer?+
Technically yes, legally not advisable. Online templates rarely fit the actual situation and frequently miss critical clauses (exclusion, mediation, share valuation). A EUR 5,000 pact can avoid EUR 50,000 in litigation.
2. Is the co-founders' agreement enforceable against future investors?+
The pact binds its signatories. At the round, VCs will renegotiate it and replace it with the global shareholders' agreement. But the trace of the initial pact strongly influences starting positions: an existing founder vesting is rarely walked back.
3. What if a co-founder refuses to sign the pact?+
Classic case. Three options: (i) take time to understand the reluctance (often a specific point); (ii) bring in a neutral lawyer to explain the issues; (iii) if refusal persists without reasonable cause, reconsider the entry into capital: a co-founder rejecting the framework is a major risk going forward.
4. Can the pact include a non-compete without compensation?+
No. French employment and commercial case law requires real financial consideration for a post-departure non-compete to be valid, especially when the co-founder is also an employee. Without consideration, the clause is void.
5. Should the pact be registered?+
The shareholders' agreement is generally not registered with the commercial registry (unlike the by-laws). It remains a private contract between signatories. This makes a deposit with the lawyer or a notarised deposit essential to give it certain date.
Conclusion#
The co-founders' agreement is not a sign of distrust. It is an act of entrepreneurial maturity, comparable to a marriage contract: it does not prevent the partnership from working, but it secures its resolution if one party must leave. Signing it before investors arrive radically changes negotiation dynamics and long-term outcomes.
Up to date as of 6 May 2026.
Article written by Hayot Expertise
Chartered Accountant, registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Regulated French accounting and audit firm based in Paris 8, built to support companies across France with a digital and decision-oriented approach.
Sources
Official and operational sources cited for this page.
- Légifrance — Code civil art. 1832 (contrat de société)
- Légifrance — Code de commerce art. L. 227-13 (clause d'agrément SAS)
- Légifrance — Code de commerce art. L. 227-16 (clause d'exclusion SAS)
- Légifrance — Code civil art. 1844-1 (clauses léonines)
- Service-public.fr — Pacte d'associés
- Bpifrance Création — Pacte entre cofondateurs
This topic is part of our service Business law support in France | Corporate secretarial
Need a quote or personalised advice?
Our accountancy firm supports you through all your steps. Get a free quote to review your situation and receive a bespoke fee proposal, or contact us directly.